2009 Report to Government on National Research and

disseminate and assimilate its results. It should be recognised that this
underground R&D may take decades. The URF should continue <strong>to</strong> be used for
as long as is necessary while the GDF is open.
21. Until a URF is available in the UK, generic R&D should be carried out in
underground facilities in other countries. This would allow UK researchers <strong>to</strong> gain
the necessary experience, as well as providing information and techniques <strong>to</strong> be
used in the UK geological disposal programme.
Recommendation 5
CoRWM recommends <strong>to</strong> <strong>Government</strong> that an underground research facility be
constructed at any site where it is proposed <strong>to</strong> construct a geological disposal facility.
Public and Stakeholder Engagement for R&D
22. At present, as in the past, stakeholders who are outside the organisations that
fund and carry out R&D have little opportunity <strong>to</strong> influence UK R&D programmes
on radioactive waste management. There is a general lack of transparency in
establishing R&D requirements and commercial reasons are often cited as a
reason for not publishing results.
23. CoRWM believes that this situation must change. As implied in Recommendation
1, a wider range of stakeholders should be involved in establishing R&D
requirements. It is also necessary <strong>to</strong> make accessible information available <strong>to</strong> the
public about R&D needs, progress and plans.
Recommendation 6
CoRWM recommends <strong>to</strong> <strong>Government</strong> that mechanisms are put in place <strong>to</strong> ensure
that a wider range of stakeholders than <strong>to</strong> date will be involved in establishing R&D
requirements for the long-term management of higher activity wastes and that
accessible information will be made available <strong>to</strong> the public about R&D needs, plans
and progress.
Specific R&D Issues
24. In addition <strong>to</strong> arrangements for providing R&D and the skills and infrastructure
needed for it, CoRWM also considered some of the <strong>to</strong>pics on which further R&D
is likely <strong>to</strong> be required for the long-term management of the UK’s higher activity
wastes. In doing so, it recognised that future R&D programmes will need <strong>to</strong> build
on the substantial body of knowledge that already exists as a result of past R&D
in the UK and other countries. This current knowledge base is sufficient <strong>to</strong> be
confident that geological disposal is the right way forward. In future R&D it will be
necessary <strong>to</strong> focus on knowledge gaps and uncertainties that are important for
UK wastes and, in the case of geological disposal, for the types of rocks in which
a GDF may be located. The results of CoRWM’s consideration of specific <strong>to</strong>pics
are in Section 6 and Appendix A of this report. CoRWM did not attempt <strong>to</strong>
identify, consider or prioritise every <strong>to</strong>pic on which R&D may be needed. The
material in Section 6 and this appendix is only intended <strong>to</strong> illustrate the range of
R&D that could be required over the next few decades.
CoRWM Document 2543, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber <strong>2009</strong> Page 11 of 151